Paul is an apologist for the convoy and one of the most disingenuous conservative pundits. He pretended in a column at MacLeans that the feds instituted all the mandates when they were decided by provincial governments and varied across the country. The feds applied mandates to federal public servants and federal industries during peak COVID. Most Canadians supported the public health measures and these clowns in trucks (who never represented the trucking industry) are a fringe minority of ignorant screamers who deserve to be shunned. I'm as disgusted by our journalists mainstreaming the equivalent of Trump insurrectionists.
I am the opposite of a Convoy supporter, but that was a great interview from both sides. Mr. Lawton made some good points and had interesting insights. Justin, you also pressed him when required.
It's unfortunate that Chapters won't stock the book. I work at a library and made sure we ordered it for our collection. Or maybe that's more of a little dig at Ken Whyte, who can say?
What a great interview! Many thanks to both of you. One of the aspects of all this that I find concerning is the degree to which the many conspiracy theories that were part of the convoy protests have radicalized people I know who don't have the tools that both of you have to discriminate between possible bullshit and reasonable argument. Lack of critical thinking skills makes people gullible to manipulation. That's not to say that people who ought to be able to use their judgement always do so-- emotion drives reaction on the left as well as on the right. Both of you make a point of acknowledging that.
Thank You this is what has been missing. This is true journalism, all points of view submitted so readers can think and reach their own conclusions. Thank you both again
On the one side you have facts and evidence and on the other far right gaslighting disinformation trolls. I wonder what conclusion I should reach, if I I'm thinking at all.
That depends if you are interested in the truth. Maybe you should read the book by Tom Quiggin, who has been used as an expert witness for the Crown numerous times. There is no far right gaslightings trolls there. But rather than have a conversation encompassing All points of view, you resort to name calling, just like your Master.
Thanks for proving my point, Babs. FYI, Tom Quiggin falsely claimed the Québec City mosque targeted by a far-right terrorist in 2017 was, itself, helping terrorists. There may have been a time (his Bosnia days) when he was reasonable but now he's just another troll who gets banned on YouTube for spreading misinformation and stirring up hatred.
Research shows the far right exploited COVID to normalize its own agenda. And the "freedom convoy" had little to do with COVID vaccines since a) the trucking industry pointed out 90% of their drivers were vaccinated and wanted nothing to do with the convoy and b) most of the rules to protect us were relaxed by the time these people decided to roll into Ottawa (mostly in single family vehicles) with a few rented big rigs thrown in to make it look like it had anything to do with truckers. https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-and-conspiracies-how-the-far-right-is-exploiting-the-pandemic-145968
A best seller relative to what? 68% of Canadians do not support the Convoy and here's a question for the antivaxxer crowd whose tent includes far right bigots, racists, and misogynists: on what planet can you claim you're financially hard up when you can afford to drive hundreds of miles to occupy a city idling your trucks and honking your horns for two months? Did you think peeing on the war memorial was a good look and would get you sympathizers? Do you honestly think Canadians would join a movement whose tent includes neoNazis? It's nice of Justin to give you the benefit of the doubt but it's your behaviour and language I judge. I recognize what you are. And True North is not journalism any more than Fox News is.
I'm not going to bother answering those loaded questions, but I do want to point out that the majority should never be allowed to rule over the minority. That's called mob rule and the reason we're supposed to have a constitution. And yes, those who remain unvaccinated for whatever reason are a minority (whether recognized in legal terms or not). This is the reason we gave a constitution, to protect minorities from the majority. Because if we did everything that the majority wanted with no regard to rights and freedoms, we likely would have never gotten the freedoms that we have today.
The far right is a feature of the convoy and is rapidly becoming a feature of the Conservative Party of Canada. (Candice Bergen, a far right airhead, jaunted about in a MAGA cap ffs.) Pierre Poilievre decided to copy Maxime Bernier in a cynical move to win the leadership of a party that is all but overtaken by social conservatives. Once he wins the leadership he will no doubt pretend he's not really the ranting far right crypto populist in order to appeal to the "red tories" and progressive cons who can't stomach him right now. I didn't buy that act from Scheer nor did I buy it when O'Toole tried it and they were far less blatant in their messaging than PP. Andrew Lawton has an extremely bad track record and it stuns me that he's being treated as reasonable and worth listening to. He isn't.
"Expect reaction today to Freedom Convoy live-streamer from Ottawa who last night streamed himself with a US flag draped on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The stream was screen-capped by an American supporter." - Glen McGregor
One of the lessons of the 20th Century was that weaponizing individual trauma and disaffection, into a mass movement, to gain power works. It is vile. That's the part we are supposed to never forget.
A civil conversation, not completely unproductive. One factoid I wish could be produced is the Venn Diagram slice of that group that are not COVID-deniers, not vaccine-deniers, only mandate-haters.
Layton may be in that group himself. Or not. Fully vaccinated, but does he *believe* in the science that got everybody else do do so? And if he does, what's the objection to the vaccine mandate? For the first variants, it was 66% reduction in your odds of infection, 50% reduction in your odds of then transmitting it if you were. I really believe that 99% of them denied the risk-reduction itself.
He also said it was maybe "illegal", though there have been vaccine mandates generations ago, all upheld in court, and the current ones survived court challenges. Justin did pound on the business of them thinking the whole government was now criminal, but that's the core of it: that settled court challenges just didn't exist. Why ignore them?
Interviewers focused on the extent to which they were confederate-sympathizers or whatever, but I would drill down on separating only-anti-mandate from actually-anti-vaccine. I consider vaccine skepticism to be right up there with confederate flag flying - it's gotten more Americans killed than their Civil War, after all. (America had 3X our casualty rate, indeed 7X our rate for those under-50; so I blame at least 2/3rds of their deaths on cultural failure to respect medicine - so, about 700,000.)
Prove me wrong, Andrew. Bring us ten pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate, protesters for a round table. But you can't find ten.
Roy I think that's an interesting point. But I do think the pro-vaccine mandate side (which I count myself a part of) did some real disservices along the way — which is to be expected, as we really don't have a modern playbook for this sort of thing. We let the notion that a vaccine = total protection run rampant. That allowed bad actors to pounce when we discovered that, as you note, it only temporarily reduces your risk to infect/infection. (But obviously provides much greater protection against serious illness.)
We could have also done more to note the science — including the social science — around mandates. While I don't think all of this criticism is legitimate, many anti-mandate (and anti-vaccine) types will say that governments, public health officials, and journalists came across with the tone: "Get it, shut up, stop asking questions or you're against science."
Vaccine skepticism is as old as vaccines themselves. I don't think skepticism maps entirely on to other bad traits or ideologies — but it can certainly be a pathway to them. Many, many vaccine skeptics come from distrust in the pharmaceutical industry (including opposition to GMOs and other things.) We need to figure out how to reach those people and say "your distrust is warranted, but this is bigger than one bad pharma company." If we don't reach them, the anti-vaxxers will first.
So I take your point. But I'm adamant that we should have done a better job communicating with the mandate skeptics.
What is the defining characteristic of a flat earther or a vaccine skeptic as compared to say, the majority who accept science, nuance, new discoveries, the evolution of a virus, that viruses can be deadly, and who have gotten vaccinated twice, three times and soon four, wear the mask with resignation and accept that COVID is something we can prevent killing us if we do certain things, even though those things are not 100% because nothing is 100%.. But doing them beats suffocating in an ICU or living with long COVID for months or years.
The skeptics are mesmerized by Facebook's algorithms and Fox News' highly paid liars and the MSM don't stand a chance against that daily diet of horseshit millions are tuned into and refuse to question. I love it when wingnuts say they appreciate both sides being aired when they choose the ignorant side every time. They aren't interested in the other side. They want their side receiving air time and attention.
Yes, the messaging was at times confusing but the basics were easy to grasp. The virus is deadly and keeps changing. The vaccine we thought would prevent transmission doesn't in populations where some people refuse to get vaccinated; but the good news is the vaccinated population isn't disproportionately hospitalized if they contract the virus. I'm average in my reading and keeping up but I got this message loud and clear. Most of us did. The unvaccinated pop is disproportionately represented in the ICU and people who refuse to wear masks keep the spread going. Antivaxxers know millions have died from COVID but still call it the flu and they still claim vaccinated people are dying by the millions.
You mention nuance and yet don't allow for nuance with arguments from a different angle. Amazing.
You mention that people don't question their right wing narrative, while you refuse to question the official narrative. Amazing.
Let me put it simply. We weren't permitted to question the official narrative. In fact, if you did, you lost your job, you got censored, you got ignored. I'm sorry, but if we don't allow for debate (free speech), how can you expect people to trust the official narrative?
Do you propose we strip all vaccine sceptics of their rights and freedoms simply because they don't accept the official narrative? How far are you willing to go with that?
I just want to warn you, the more you do that to one side, the more likely the other side will do the same and potentially worse. There's a reason why free speech and the right to disagree need to exist. Without them, we end up with nothing short of violence
I agree with you, we need to be able to discuss a subject and allow each other their own opinions, we can agree to disagree without denigrating anyone.
You're correct that I don't dispute facts or question proven things. Calling proven vaccines "a narrative" is just stupidity and every word out of your pie hole just proves what I've said about convoy morons.
Which part of 95% effectiveness was "proven scientific fact"? Or how about the one where they said that those who got the vaccines wouldn't get covid? Was that proven science? Because the proof sure suggests otherwise right now. Even the argument that it reduces serious illness and hospitalization is showing to be rather scant of evidence.
Just want to point out that it was mostly THIS VACCINE scepticism. The very little amount of time it took to develop, the very little amount of actual study being done on it, the complete dearth of a long term study (we still have at least another 5 years until we see that data). That explains the bulk of it. No matter how much media reasoning or government arguments being made, none of that would have changed much scepticism. In fact, I'd argue that much of this caused more scepticism. Particularly the mandates themselves. Imagine having a product so good that you effectively need to take people's freedoms away for not taking it. Think about that one for a minute.
The vaccines are such a good product that the government felt the need to effectively force people to take them on penalty of having many former freedoms taken from them. Now, does that make you more or less confident in said products safety/effectiveness? For a person like myself, and many others in my proximity, it makes me a heck of a lot less confident.
Oh, cool, another "Venn Diagram Slice" I didn't even think of.
To repeat, I think it's a very, very tiny slice of the Convoy that hates mandates but totally accepts all vaccines themselves.
I suspect, of the very large slice that is not just mandate-hating, but won't take the vaccine itself, well over half won't accept any vaccine at all, whereas well under half are only concerned about the COVID vaccines. By the time the convoy rolled, there were also "good 'ol fashioned" vaccines like Novavax and Johnson&Johnson, but I didn't see a single sign or protester comment that indicated they were waiting for the "right" vaccine to come along. Every interview devolved into general anti-vax complaints, with not one of them distinguishing between different types or brands.
If you could provide a link to such an interview, or pictures of protesters with brand-related concerns about only the new vaccines, please educate us.
Who cares? Is simply being against all vaccines make you a terrible person who deserves to have your rights and freedoms taken away? I'll wait for a direct answer, though I don't expect to get one.
It doesn't matter where they stand on this or that vaccine. I was merely pointing out that this went too far for a lot of people (vaccinated, unvaccinated, against mandates). The whole thing was shady to begin with. And heck, I didn't even specify one brand of "vaccine" myself. I think many were taking a wait and see approach, an approach that is merely unacceptable to those pushing for mandates (how dare you question the vaccines!?! No restaurants for you!).
On the contrary, this is the perfect "razor" to shave off the difference between scientific thinking, and magical thinking.
Those who concede that vaccines, as a basic concept, have 200 years of success behind them, beat smallpox and polio, have saved millions of lives and taken almost none via side-effects - BUT, do say: "a new vaccine technology hasn't been tried widely, I want extensive testing before I take one" are thinking scientifically about long-agreed facts, expressing skepticism the vaccinologists would approve. They'd be eager to show you their data! They were skeptics going in, didn't come forward until they could prove it.
Those who think all vaccines are inherently unsafe are thinking differently from that. The vaccinologists would see no point in showing them data or any other argument, argument being useless.
You know what the difference between you and I is?
I don't feel the need to compel people to agree with my worldview whereas you do. That's the core of this whole thing. Who cares about anti-vaxxers or not? The core of the issue is compelling people to do something that they don't want to do, regardless of their worldview.
I'm not forcing people not to take the jab, but you want to force people to take it.
"Magical thinking", yeah that's a good way to put it, shows how much respect you have for people who disagree.
Yet again, you're running on some false assumptions here. The idea that all vaccinologists agree on these vaccines (they don't), the idea that the entire medical community is unanimous (it isn't), and the "magical thinking" that scientists are even permitted to speak out on these vaccines without the risk of losing their jobs. That's the over magical thinking there.
Thanks! It was my tippy-top question. For the record, there was another. (Never reply to internet commenters, it encourages us.)
Everybody in Calgary with a protest, since it was built in 1988, goes to the Olympic Plaza, dead centre in front of City Hall, big open space surrounded by transit and restaurants. Until the Convoy West (Weekenders) showed up in the dense Beltline neighbourhood, horns aflame, weekend after weekend after weekend, until counter-protesters forced police presence.
To me that says that, in Ottawa, far from inadvertently causing minor inconvenience to nearby residential neighbourhoods, they discovered a whole new pressure point to jab; *deliberately* cause residential pain, in order to get attention. (Unlike Occupy, who were ignored at the Plaza, and on Parliament Hill, after week 2.) What else would explain the Beltline torture, Mr. Layton?
...needless to say, Layton would feel no urge to answer, since he can shrug off the Calgarians the way he shrugged off the guys at Coutts. But it actually raises another question about whom-to-talk-to on the Convoy: if any given speaker can shrug off inconvenient members, is there any one united message? Maybe a majority of them would shrug off the Facebook page as feeble. So , bonus question: "Did you survey folks for how MANY preferred the MOU to the Facebook message?"
I think there's a Facebook Wing to the Convoy and an MOU Wing. And that, of those who stayed more than one weekend, it was about 60% MOU.
It's refreshing to see both of you having this conversation. Thanks to you both
Paul is an apologist for the convoy and one of the most disingenuous conservative pundits. He pretended in a column at MacLeans that the feds instituted all the mandates when they were decided by provincial governments and varied across the country. The feds applied mandates to federal public servants and federal industries during peak COVID. Most Canadians supported the public health measures and these clowns in trucks (who never represented the trucking industry) are a fringe minority of ignorant screamers who deserve to be shunned. I'm as disgusted by our journalists mainstreaming the equivalent of Trump insurrectionists.
I am the opposite of a Convoy supporter, but that was a great interview from both sides. Mr. Lawton made some good points and had interesting insights. Justin, you also pressed him when required.
It's unfortunate that Chapters won't stock the book. I work at a library and made sure we ordered it for our collection. Or maybe that's more of a little dig at Ken Whyte, who can say?
Why do people who support far right conservatives like Andrew pretend they don't support the convoy?
What a great interview! Many thanks to both of you. One of the aspects of all this that I find concerning is the degree to which the many conspiracy theories that were part of the convoy protests have radicalized people I know who don't have the tools that both of you have to discriminate between possible bullshit and reasonable argument. Lack of critical thinking skills makes people gullible to manipulation. That's not to say that people who ought to be able to use their judgement always do so-- emotion drives reaction on the left as well as on the right. Both of you make a point of acknowledging that.
Both sidesing medical science and antivaxxer trolls. Yep, those are definitely exactly equal.
This was a lot of fun. Thanks for the opportunity, Justin!
Thank You this is what has been missing. This is true journalism, all points of view submitted so readers can think and reach their own conclusions. Thank you both again
On the one side you have facts and evidence and on the other far right gaslighting disinformation trolls. I wonder what conclusion I should reach, if I I'm thinking at all.
That depends if you are interested in the truth. Maybe you should read the book by Tom Quiggin, who has been used as an expert witness for the Crown numerous times. There is no far right gaslightings trolls there. But rather than have a conversation encompassing All points of view, you resort to name calling, just like your Master.
Thanks for proving my point, Babs. FYI, Tom Quiggin falsely claimed the Québec City mosque targeted by a far-right terrorist in 2017 was, itself, helping terrorists. There may have been a time (his Bosnia days) when he was reasonable but now he's just another troll who gets banned on YouTube for spreading misinformation and stirring up hatred.
Research shows the far right exploited COVID to normalize its own agenda. And the "freedom convoy" had little to do with COVID vaccines since a) the trucking industry pointed out 90% of their drivers were vaccinated and wanted nothing to do with the convoy and b) most of the rules to protect us were relaxed by the time these people decided to roll into Ottawa (mostly in single family vehicles) with a few rented big rigs thrown in to make it look like it had anything to do with truckers. https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-and-conspiracies-how-the-far-right-is-exploiting-the-pandemic-145968
A best seller relative to what? 68% of Canadians do not support the Convoy and here's a question for the antivaxxer crowd whose tent includes far right bigots, racists, and misogynists: on what planet can you claim you're financially hard up when you can afford to drive hundreds of miles to occupy a city idling your trucks and honking your horns for two months? Did you think peeing on the war memorial was a good look and would get you sympathizers? Do you honestly think Canadians would join a movement whose tent includes neoNazis? It's nice of Justin to give you the benefit of the doubt but it's your behaviour and language I judge. I recognize what you are. And True North is not journalism any more than Fox News is.
I'm not going to bother answering those loaded questions, but I do want to point out that the majority should never be allowed to rule over the minority. That's called mob rule and the reason we're supposed to have a constitution. And yes, those who remain unvaccinated for whatever reason are a minority (whether recognized in legal terms or not). This is the reason we gave a constitution, to protect minorities from the majority. Because if we did everything that the majority wanted with no regard to rights and freedoms, we likely would have never gotten the freedoms that we have today.
The far right is a feature of the convoy and is rapidly becoming a feature of the Conservative Party of Canada. (Candice Bergen, a far right airhead, jaunted about in a MAGA cap ffs.) Pierre Poilievre decided to copy Maxime Bernier in a cynical move to win the leadership of a party that is all but overtaken by social conservatives. Once he wins the leadership he will no doubt pretend he's not really the ranting far right crypto populist in order to appeal to the "red tories" and progressive cons who can't stomach him right now. I didn't buy that act from Scheer nor did I buy it when O'Toole tried it and they were far less blatant in their messaging than PP. Andrew Lawton has an extremely bad track record and it stuns me that he's being treated as reasonable and worth listening to. He isn't.
Speaking of crazy conspiracy theories....
You don't know the meaning of words either.
Freedumb Convoy: July edition.
https://twitter.com/glen_mcgregor/status/1551531448800317440
"Expect reaction today to Freedom Convoy live-streamer from Ottawa who last night streamed himself with a US flag draped on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The stream was screen-capped by an American supporter." - Glen McGregor
One of the lessons of the 20th Century was that weaponizing individual trauma and disaffection, into a mass movement, to gain power works. It is vile. That's the part we are supposed to never forget.
A heads up on the convoy's next move. Crashing the Pope's visits with Indigenous people. I mean... being godawful seems to be their mission statement.
https://twitter.com/EmmaLGraney/status/1550612353317683200
Mackenna. I think you need some help. May the Lord bless you. I'll be praying for you, friend.
Gaslighting is another tactic you freedumbers use. Pitiful that you call yourselves Christian.
Haha I guess it takes one to know one.
My God, you live here don't you. LOL. Hilarious.
Just on the ball, my friend.
A civil conversation, not completely unproductive. One factoid I wish could be produced is the Venn Diagram slice of that group that are not COVID-deniers, not vaccine-deniers, only mandate-haters.
Layton may be in that group himself. Or not. Fully vaccinated, but does he *believe* in the science that got everybody else do do so? And if he does, what's the objection to the vaccine mandate? For the first variants, it was 66% reduction in your odds of infection, 50% reduction in your odds of then transmitting it if you were. I really believe that 99% of them denied the risk-reduction itself.
He also said it was maybe "illegal", though there have been vaccine mandates generations ago, all upheld in court, and the current ones survived court challenges. Justin did pound on the business of them thinking the whole government was now criminal, but that's the core of it: that settled court challenges just didn't exist. Why ignore them?
Interviewers focused on the extent to which they were confederate-sympathizers or whatever, but I would drill down on separating only-anti-mandate from actually-anti-vaccine. I consider vaccine skepticism to be right up there with confederate flag flying - it's gotten more Americans killed than their Civil War, after all. (America had 3X our casualty rate, indeed 7X our rate for those under-50; so I blame at least 2/3rds of their deaths on cultural failure to respect medicine - so, about 700,000.)
Prove me wrong, Andrew. Bring us ten pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate, protesters for a round table. But you can't find ten.
Roy I think that's an interesting point. But I do think the pro-vaccine mandate side (which I count myself a part of) did some real disservices along the way — which is to be expected, as we really don't have a modern playbook for this sort of thing. We let the notion that a vaccine = total protection run rampant. That allowed bad actors to pounce when we discovered that, as you note, it only temporarily reduces your risk to infect/infection. (But obviously provides much greater protection against serious illness.)
We could have also done more to note the science — including the social science — around mandates. While I don't think all of this criticism is legitimate, many anti-mandate (and anti-vaccine) types will say that governments, public health officials, and journalists came across with the tone: "Get it, shut up, stop asking questions or you're against science."
Vaccine skepticism is as old as vaccines themselves. I don't think skepticism maps entirely on to other bad traits or ideologies — but it can certainly be a pathway to them. Many, many vaccine skeptics come from distrust in the pharmaceutical industry (including opposition to GMOs and other things.) We need to figure out how to reach those people and say "your distrust is warranted, but this is bigger than one bad pharma company." If we don't reach them, the anti-vaxxers will first.
So I take your point. But I'm adamant that we should have done a better job communicating with the mandate skeptics.
What is the defining characteristic of a flat earther or a vaccine skeptic as compared to say, the majority who accept science, nuance, new discoveries, the evolution of a virus, that viruses can be deadly, and who have gotten vaccinated twice, three times and soon four, wear the mask with resignation and accept that COVID is something we can prevent killing us if we do certain things, even though those things are not 100% because nothing is 100%.. But doing them beats suffocating in an ICU or living with long COVID for months or years.
The skeptics are mesmerized by Facebook's algorithms and Fox News' highly paid liars and the MSM don't stand a chance against that daily diet of horseshit millions are tuned into and refuse to question. I love it when wingnuts say they appreciate both sides being aired when they choose the ignorant side every time. They aren't interested in the other side. They want their side receiving air time and attention.
Yes, the messaging was at times confusing but the basics were easy to grasp. The virus is deadly and keeps changing. The vaccine we thought would prevent transmission doesn't in populations where some people refuse to get vaccinated; but the good news is the vaccinated population isn't disproportionately hospitalized if they contract the virus. I'm average in my reading and keeping up but I got this message loud and clear. Most of us did. The unvaccinated pop is disproportionately represented in the ICU and people who refuse to wear masks keep the spread going. Antivaxxers know millions have died from COVID but still call it the flu and they still claim vaccinated people are dying by the millions.
Why give them any air time.
You mention nuance and yet don't allow for nuance with arguments from a different angle. Amazing.
You mention that people don't question their right wing narrative, while you refuse to question the official narrative. Amazing.
Let me put it simply. We weren't permitted to question the official narrative. In fact, if you did, you lost your job, you got censored, you got ignored. I'm sorry, but if we don't allow for debate (free speech), how can you expect people to trust the official narrative?
Do you propose we strip all vaccine sceptics of their rights and freedoms simply because they don't accept the official narrative? How far are you willing to go with that?
I just want to warn you, the more you do that to one side, the more likely the other side will do the same and potentially worse. There's a reason why free speech and the right to disagree need to exist. Without them, we end up with nothing short of violence
I agree with you, we need to be able to discuss a subject and allow each other their own opinions, we can agree to disagree without denigrating anyone.
You're correct that I don't dispute facts or question proven things. Calling proven vaccines "a narrative" is just stupidity and every word out of your pie hole just proves what I've said about convoy morons.
Which part of 95% effectiveness was "proven scientific fact"? Or how about the one where they said that those who got the vaccines wouldn't get covid? Was that proven science? Because the proof sure suggests otherwise right now. Even the argument that it reduces serious illness and hospitalization is showing to be rather scant of evidence.
Hah! Proven scientific facts. That's a good one!
Nothing is ever 100%. Correction, you are a 100% verified moron.
Just want to point out that it was mostly THIS VACCINE scepticism. The very little amount of time it took to develop, the very little amount of actual study being done on it, the complete dearth of a long term study (we still have at least another 5 years until we see that data). That explains the bulk of it. No matter how much media reasoning or government arguments being made, none of that would have changed much scepticism. In fact, I'd argue that much of this caused more scepticism. Particularly the mandates themselves. Imagine having a product so good that you effectively need to take people's freedoms away for not taking it. Think about that one for a minute.
The vaccines are such a good product that the government felt the need to effectively force people to take them on penalty of having many former freedoms taken from them. Now, does that make you more or less confident in said products safety/effectiveness? For a person like myself, and many others in my proximity, it makes me a heck of a lot less confident.
You need to read more about MRNA vaccines which have been under research for 30 years. COVID was the (almost) new thing, not the vaccine science.
And yet they had never been used on people at this level before. Fascinating.
Another ignorant comment.
Oh, cool, another "Venn Diagram Slice" I didn't even think of.
To repeat, I think it's a very, very tiny slice of the Convoy that hates mandates but totally accepts all vaccines themselves.
I suspect, of the very large slice that is not just mandate-hating, but won't take the vaccine itself, well over half won't accept any vaccine at all, whereas well under half are only concerned about the COVID vaccines. By the time the convoy rolled, there were also "good 'ol fashioned" vaccines like Novavax and Johnson&Johnson, but I didn't see a single sign or protester comment that indicated they were waiting for the "right" vaccine to come along. Every interview devolved into general anti-vax complaints, with not one of them distinguishing between different types or brands.
If you could provide a link to such an interview, or pictures of protesters with brand-related concerns about only the new vaccines, please educate us.
*sigh*
Who cares? Is simply being against all vaccines make you a terrible person who deserves to have your rights and freedoms taken away? I'll wait for a direct answer, though I don't expect to get one.
It doesn't matter where they stand on this or that vaccine. I was merely pointing out that this went too far for a lot of people (vaccinated, unvaccinated, against mandates). The whole thing was shady to begin with. And heck, I didn't even specify one brand of "vaccine" myself. I think many were taking a wait and see approach, an approach that is merely unacceptable to those pushing for mandates (how dare you question the vaccines!?! No restaurants for you!).
Give me a break, man.
On the contrary, this is the perfect "razor" to shave off the difference between scientific thinking, and magical thinking.
Those who concede that vaccines, as a basic concept, have 200 years of success behind them, beat smallpox and polio, have saved millions of lives and taken almost none via side-effects - BUT, do say: "a new vaccine technology hasn't been tried widely, I want extensive testing before I take one" are thinking scientifically about long-agreed facts, expressing skepticism the vaccinologists would approve. They'd be eager to show you their data! They were skeptics going in, didn't come forward until they could prove it.
Those who think all vaccines are inherently unsafe are thinking differently from that. The vaccinologists would see no point in showing them data or any other argument, argument being useless.
You know what the difference between you and I is?
I don't feel the need to compel people to agree with my worldview whereas you do. That's the core of this whole thing. Who cares about anti-vaxxers or not? The core of the issue is compelling people to do something that they don't want to do, regardless of their worldview.
I'm not forcing people not to take the jab, but you want to force people to take it.
Just admit it.
"Magical thinking", yeah that's a good way to put it, shows how much respect you have for people who disagree.
Yet again, you're running on some false assumptions here. The idea that all vaccinologists agree on these vaccines (they don't), the idea that the entire medical community is unanimous (it isn't), and the "magical thinking" that scientists are even permitted to speak out on these vaccines without the risk of losing their jobs. That's the over magical thinking there.
But keep it up, buddy.
Thanks! It was my tippy-top question. For the record, there was another. (Never reply to internet commenters, it encourages us.)
Everybody in Calgary with a protest, since it was built in 1988, goes to the Olympic Plaza, dead centre in front of City Hall, big open space surrounded by transit and restaurants. Until the Convoy West (Weekenders) showed up in the dense Beltline neighbourhood, horns aflame, weekend after weekend after weekend, until counter-protesters forced police presence.
To me that says that, in Ottawa, far from inadvertently causing minor inconvenience to nearby residential neighbourhoods, they discovered a whole new pressure point to jab; *deliberately* cause residential pain, in order to get attention. (Unlike Occupy, who were ignored at the Plaza, and on Parliament Hill, after week 2.) What else would explain the Beltline torture, Mr. Layton?
...needless to say, Layton would feel no urge to answer, since he can shrug off the Calgarians the way he shrugged off the guys at Coutts. But it actually raises another question about whom-to-talk-to on the Convoy: if any given speaker can shrug off inconvenient members, is there any one united message? Maybe a majority of them would shrug off the Facebook page as feeble. So , bonus question: "Did you survey folks for how MANY preferred the MOU to the Facebook message?"
I think there's a Facebook Wing to the Convoy and an MOU Wing. And that, of those who stayed more than one weekend, it was about 60% MOU.